What troops need to know about Basic Allowance for Housing in 2025
Note: Whether it's health care, retirement benefits, family support and child care, VA benefits or other programs, getting smart about the rewards you have earned is worth your time. Although it is not yet clear to what extent federal cuts will affect DOD programs — including quality-of-life initiatives — these benefits were in place as of this writing.
Visit this page for all of our latest coverage surrounding military and veteran pay and benefits.
The military's housing stipend, known as the Basic Allowance for Housing, increased by an average of 5.4% per person in January 2025, the same percentage increase troops saw in 2024. Whether service members saw a larger or smaller increase than average depends on their location.
BAH rates are typically adjusted once a year and take effect Jan. 1. However, DOD in the post-pandemic years took additional steps to ease the burden of surging housing costs on service members. The Pentagon provided temporary out-of-cycle increases in BAH for some hard-hit areas in 2021 and 2022; it also bumped up the rate by 12.1%, on average, in 2023 — the largest increase in 15 years.
Meanwhile, the military is continuing to study how BAH is calculated and whether the stipend meets the needs of service members.
The Basic Allowance for Housing provides compensation for the housing costs of active duty troops stationed in the 50 U.S. states who do not live on government-owned property. Stipend amounts are tied to local market rates and depend on recipients' rank, whether they have dependents and where they are based.
The tax-free benefit is intended to cover 95% of the estimated average housing costs, including utilities, at each assigned duty post in the United States. Individual service members are expected to pay the remaining 5% of housing costs out of pocket. Congress or the Pentagon could boost the stipend to cover 100% of those projected expenses instead.
Most service members can choose where to live. Those living in privatized housing — owned and operated by civilian companies for the military — also receive BAH, but the allowance typically goes straight to their landlord each month.
If troops can find housing in the civilian community that's cheaper than the BAH rate for their assigned location, they can pocket the difference. And if homes are more expensive than what BAH will cover, troops pay for the overage.
Those stationed in U.S. territories or overseas who are not provided government housing are eligible for an overseas housing allowance, which is calculated under a separate formula. That allowance partially offsets housing expenses at overseas duty locations when service members live in privately leased housing on the local economy.
DOD conducts a survey to calculate median rental costs for 300 military housing areas, including Alaska and Hawaii. Calculations are based on the rental costs of a one- or two-bedroom apartment, a two- or three-bedroom townhome and a two- or three-bedroom single-family home. The BAH for junior enlisted, for example, might be based on the equivalent of a small apartment, while the allowance for more senior enlisted and officers might be based on the equivalent of a house.
Two rates — with and without dependents — are set for each location. Personnel with at least one dependent, whether a spouse or a child, qualify for the dependents rate. It does not increase for additional family members.
For dual-military couples with no children, both spouses get the without-dependents rate. If the couple has children, one spouse receives the with-dependent BAH rate, while the other gets the without-dependents rate.
BAH varies widely. For details of locations across the country, you can use the Defense Department's official BAH calculator.
Service members receive BAH rate protection as long as they remain in their home, even if rates drop. However, if they move, are demoted or their dependency status changes, they will receive the rate for their new status.
If rates rise in a location, all service members receive the higher rates, regardless of when they arrived.
Find more information on BAH on DOD's website.
A new Basic Needs Allowance for low-income military families took effect Jan. 1, 2023. The payout is designed to serve as a safety net for individuals whose total family income, including the spouse's income, falls below 150% of the annual federal poverty guidelines. But for many members, the housing allowance bumps them above the income threshold. The law was changed in late 2024 to expand eligibility to those whose total family income falls below 200% of the annual federal poverty guidelines.
Service officials continually screen service members and notify those who may be eligible. Once people are told they could qualify, they must submit an application and go through a final income screening to determine whether they can receive the benefit.
DOD policy allows service members who believe they may qualify for the benefit, but haven't been screened as eligible, to apply on their own. They should contact their financial counselors for help.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Inside the battle to control the world's supply of rare earths
Back in 2009, Jim Kennedy, a consultant and entrepreneur of rare earths — a group of 17 metallic elements, including 15 lanthanides, crucial for modern technology — met with a top official at the Pentagon to discuss the future of these precious minerals. 'He was almost indifferent to the issue,' Kennedy tells The Post. 'His dispassion was staggering. It was one of the most disappointing meetings in my life.' Sixteen years later, that indifference has widely disappeared. Rare earths — used for everything from smartphones, electric cars and airplane engines to medical equipment, wind turbines and military applications like missiles and fighter jets — have become one of the most in-demand and politically contested industries in the world. 10 A miner carrying a heavy bag of rare earth-filled mud in China, which controls many of the most crucial rare earth elements now required for the sophisticated technology that powers everything from cellphones to fighter jets. REUTERS Rare earths 'enjoy an unusual level of bipartisan political support because they are vital both to economic development and national security,' says Melissa Sanderson, a former president and current board director at American Rare Earths, an Australian company focused on developing rare earth projects, including one in Wyoming. Rare earths aren't just a big part of modern technology; they're in many ways the most critical components. They're used as heat-absorbing agents in wind turbine motors, as strengthening and anti-glare agents in iPhones and fighter jets and as clarifying agents in MRIs. They're also almost completely controlled by China. Between 2020 and 2023, 70% of our rare earth imports came from China, according to Statista. That number jumped to 80% last year. And the US is 100% reliant on China imports of Yttrium, a rare earth metal used in everything from cellphones to TVs to radiation therapy used to treat liver cancer. 10 Rare earths 'enjoy an unusual level of bipartisan political support because they are vital both to economic development and national security,' says Melissa Sanderson, a former president and current board director at American Rare Earths. China has been fickle about granting export licenses for rare earths, although their grip has shown recent signs of weakening. President Trump had a lengthy (and rare) phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on June 5 and in a social media post after the call, Trump wrote 'there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products.' The next day, China granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. The irony is that for much of the mid-20th century, the US was a global leader of rare earth elements. But 'demand was exponentially lower at the time,' says Sanderson. 'Therefore, the output from our sole producer — Mountain Pass Materials, known as MP Materials now — was sufficient to satisfy a large percentage of then-existing demand.' The Las Vegas-Nevada-based company still operates the only rare earth mine and processing facility in the United States. 10 President Trump and President Zelensky meet in the Oval Office in February. Soon after this meeting a deal was made for Ukraine to supply vital rare earths to the United States. AFP via Getty Images America's rare earths lead came to an end in 1980, brought on by changes to US regulations. Because processing rare earth minerals involves the separation and removal of uranium and thorium, it can lead to radioactive waste and other contaminants. 'The US was concerned about the environmental impact, since particularly with the technology of the time, there were significant impacts to air, water and even ground quality that would not have met US standards,' says Sanderson. It wasn't the same story in China, who were more willing to accept the dangerous pollutants 'as a price for achieving its market dominance,' she says. China's monopoly of rare earths doesn't just give them an economic advantage. 'China has been 'weaponizing' its market hegemony for many years, in increasingly sophisticated and legal ways,' says Sanderson. 10 Pres. Trump with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Having conceded its lead on rare earth mining, the US is playing a serious game of catch-up with the Chinese. REUTERS The country first flexed their power in 2010, blocking rare earth exports to Japan, a major producer of permanent metal magnets. 'That decision was overturned by the World Trade Organization, so China does not exert its control as overtly now,' says Sanderson. But in the current trade tussle with the US, 'China has identified seven crucial elements under its export control regime which it will not sell to the US,' says Sanderson. 'Due to concerns that while suitable for civilian economic use, they could also be used for military purposes.' While President Trump's tariffs are often blamed for exacerbating the tensions, Kennedy, who serves as president of ThREE Consulting, a rare earths consultancy, says the tariffs are actually 'forcing China to reveal the magnitude of this threat. Absent Trump's tariffs, China would never have shown its hand until it was too late.' 10 The US is 100% reliant on China imports of Yttrium, a rare earth metal used in everything from cellphones to TVs to radiation therapy used to treat liver cancer. REUTERS Just how bad could it get? Kennedy believes that if left unchecked, and China was allowed to continue their embargo without consequences, 'the non-Chinese world would need to shut down and re-engineer most everything that comes off an assembly line,' says Kennedy. 'This is not an overstatement.' The stand-off with China may be at the forefront, but it's not the only way Trump is maneuvering to protect the nation from rare earth depletion. Greenland contains (by some estimates) about a quarter of the world's rare earth minerals, and Trump has suggested that the US could annex the autonomous territory in Denmark. 10 A chunk of Ytrium, once of the most important rare earth elements. Phil Degginger/imageBROKER/Shutterstock The US also recently inked a landmark deal with Ukraine, which has approximately 5% of the total global mineral reserves. Although Trump declared in February that Ukraine would be providing 'the equivalent of like $500 billion worth of rare earth [minerals],' the exact amount wasn't specified in the deal, other than that the US and Ukraine would be splitting profits 50/50. There have also been efforts to mine rare earths from an entirely new source — the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. 10 Consultant Jim Kennedy was one of the first industry insiders to raise the alarm around the rarity — and potential global conflict — surrounding rare earths. It's called the 'Clarion Clipperton Zone,' a remote area of the Pacific between Hawaii and Mexico, roughly half the size of the contiguous US. This seabed region is rich in polymetallic nodules, the rock-like formations that contain some of the most sought-after rare earths in the world. It's a veritable goldmine waiting to be unearthed. In fact, the US Geological Survey recently estimated that the Clarion Clipperton Zone contains more nickel, cobalt and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined. The Metals Company, a Canadian firm with US investment ties, is already making strides to become the first to mine commercially in the region. They conducted a field test back in 2022, and the company is currently applying for 'exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits' from the US. There are legal hurdles that could slow down their ambitions. Despite a 1980 law passed by Congress to regulate seabed mining, the Clarion Clipperton Zone technically falls under the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority, which operates under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Whether the ISA has exclusive authority over the region remains open to debate. 10 Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, has dismissed some of the concerns about potential environmental damage surrounding rare earth mining efforts. AFP via Getty Images There are also environmental concerns. Arlo Hemphill, a Senior Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace, warns that any move to mine the Pacific 'would be an ecological disaster. Scientists have not even had a chance to fully explore and understand the wonders of the deep, but a greedy corporation wants to tear up this ecosystem and cause immense ecological damage.' Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, dismisses these concerns, pointing out during a recent interview that Indonesia regularly mines in biodiverse rainforest regions. 'For some reason,' he said during the interview, 'people think it's okay to go digging up rainforests to get the metals underneath them, yet we're debating whether we should be going to pick up these rocks that sit on the abyssal plain?' (Barron did not respond to the Post's request for comment.) There are other options, but many are just as controversial. Sanderson believes the key will come down to strengthening our relationship with allies like Canada and Australia. 'They have significant natural resources and experienced and large mining companies,' she says. 'Cooperation with these countries is vital for filling the knowledge gap. The US doesn't have nearly enough experienced chemical and process engineers, as just one example.' 10 Rare earths are also crucial components of military fighter jets. Soonthorn – It took half a century for China to achieve its market position, she says, and the US needs an integrated supply chain from mine to magnet, but we're essentially starting from scratch. The US also needs to reform its mining regulatory system, which has a dysfunctional permitting process and some of the longest lead times for new mine production in the world. 'On average, companies wait anywhere from eight to fifteen years from when a deposit is initially determined to be economically interesting to when production can start,' says Sanderson, 'and some have waited significantly longer than that.' New mining projects are also frequently litigated, 'multiple times from multiple angles,' says Sanderson, which can add even more years to the wait time. With the return on investment horizon so long and the prospects so uncertain, many companies 'have difficulty attracting the investment necessary to support the high costs of building a mine,' she says. 10 Miners of rare earths such as these in China are increasingly at the forefront of the global race to control many of the elements that will determine our technological future. REUTERS Kennedy, however, is hopeful for the future. His company, Caldera Holding LLC, is collaborating with federal labs to refashion a former iron ore mine in Missouri to focus on rare earth minerals. He believes his mine is the only one that can provide 'geopolitically significant quantities' of rare earths.' But the ball, says Kennedy, is very much in Trump's court. His trade war has caused uncertainty, but the president's actions 'strongly suggest that delinking from China is real. This can be helpful, but follow-through is critical.' It's now up to the Trump administration to provide low-cost loans, grants and production tax credits to US-based mining companies that have (at least until now) faced almost insurmountable obstacles. 'Failure to support integrated projects,' says Kennedy, 'will result in many slow-motion train wrecks.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Drone overload: Too many people want to sell drones to the US military
A lot of US defense companies are building similar small aerial drones, saturating the market. The Ukraine war and demand signals from the Pentagon have incited the competitive environment. But there are concerns the products are too alike and the military won't buy enough, industry insiders said. Drones are in high demand at the Petagon, but insiders say the market is already jammed with too many lookalike quadcopters and startups chasing the same investments and military dollars. "We're seeing a lot of companies in the space," one defense industry investor, who requested anonymity to speak freely on the topic, told Business Insider, noting that in many cases, there may not be significant differences in capability between the products that these companies are delivering. The relatively niche small uncrewed aerial vehicle market has seen a boom in competition in recent years, with many companies developing the actual uncrewed aircraft, as well as software programs and modular payloads. The Department of Defense has long used large drones like the MQ-9 Reaper built for reconnaissance and combat strike missions, but there is a growing recognition as a result of the Ukraine war and engagements in the Middle East that low-cost, attritable first-person-view (FPV) drones have a place in modern warfare. Heightened interest in these capabilities is, in turn, fueling the drone market and creating new research and development pathways even without programs of record. The yearslong war in Ukraine has driven significant advancements in aerial drones but also uncrewed ground and surface vehicles, sensors, electronic warfare, reconnaissance and intelligence systems, and more. "In the last five years, new technologies that are on display in Ukraine, they have a pretty big impact on warfare," Michael Brown, a partner with venture capital firm Shield Capital, told BI. Within the US market, a lot of new drones are in technology demonstration programs. DoD is effectively putting out information on the types of systems and capabilities it wants. Various industry partners are applying with their solutions. Eventually, these will evolve into programs of record, and the competition will thin down dramatically when awards are granted to specific companies. Melissa Johnson, US Special Operations Command's acquisition executive, said the acquisitions, technology, and logistics team was "transparent with industry when issuing solicitations to communicate the needs of Special Operations Forces." She said that this process involves looking at a variety of factors, including "performance, manufacturability, operational considerations, and affordability." As the market becomes oversaturated with drone makers producing similar products, companies are increasingly trying to distinguish themselves in capability, as well as adaptability to countermeasures, such as electronic warfare. Not all of the companies rushing in are going to be competitive in the long run. Some won't be able to create a great product; others may not be able to scale up production to meet military demand. One drone maker, who requested anonymity to speak openly on the topic, said the current situation is comparable to the early automobile industry. "100 years ago, you had a bunch of companies trying to produce cars, and at the end of the day, the strong survived. I think that's what you're starting to see now." Drones are not exactly a new focus for American defense companies. In the mid- to late-2010s, a small but still substantial number of businesses were developing drones like small UAVs amid the growth of commercial drone development. Costs, mass production, and capabilities weren't clear, though, and many of these companies were unsuccessful or shifted focus. That could be shaping how investors think about where to put — or not put — money into the market even if there are many more companies to work with. "I think investors are a little scared about investing into an industry that historically, for small drones, has not been very profitable," the drone maker said. The nuance there, he said, is that Ukraine's use of drones and its sprawling defense industry have demonstrated a different look at the modern battlefield and the industries needed to sustain a war. Kyiv's drone makers are pumping hundreds of thousands of them, many with Chinese drone parts, out each month at relatively low costs. The US situation is a one-for-one, though. Chinese parts are a definite no-go, increasing the need for domestic supply chains. That said, there isn't a wartime demand for millions of combat drones the way there is in Ukraine. One of the biggest questions is whether the Defense Department will buy enough small drones to make these business endeavors profitable in the near term. Looking at small drones, "if the US continues to only purchase 12- to 15,000 drones a year, having 300 vendors is probably not going to satisfy market dynamics of returning the majority to those vendors," Sarah Pearson, deputy director for commercial operations at DIU, told BI. DIU's perspective is that competition in the market can push vendors to build better capabilities and ultimately lead to the best possible product. Concerns, however, remain over whether DoD would continually buy enough drones to keep businesses going. "If we buy, call it 10,000 drones, unless we're in high-intensity conflict," the industry investor said, "I don't necessarily know that I see a world where we're replacing 10,000 drones every year." And if that's not the case, it is an issue for the drone business. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Aukus: Could Trump sink Australia's submarine plans?
Australia's defence minister woke up to a nightmare earlier this week - and it's one that has been looming ever since the United States re-elected Donald Trump as president in November. A landmark trilateral agreement between the US, UK and Australia - which would give the latter cutting-edge nuclear submarine technology in exchange for more help policing China in the Asia-Pacific - was under review. The White House said on Thursday it wanted to make sure the so-called Aukus pact was "aligned with the president's America First agenda". It's the latest move from Washington that challenges its long-standing friendship with Canberra, sparking fears Down Under that, as conflict heats up around the globe, Australia may be left standing without its greatest ally. "I don't think any Australian should feel that our ally is fully committed to our security at this moment," says Sam Roggeveen, who leads the security programme at Australia's Lowy Institute think tank. On paper, Australia is the clear beneficiary of the Aukus agreement, worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn). The technology underpinning the pact belongs to the US, and the UK already has it, along with their own nuclear-powered subs. But those that are being jointly designed and built by the three countries will be an improvement. For Australia, this represents a pivotal upgrade to military capabilities. The new submarine model will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet, and allow it to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first time. It is a big deal for the US to share what has been described as the "crown jewel" of its defence technology, and no small thing for the UK to hand over engine blueprints either. But arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in the Asia-Pacific region, which is far from their own. It's about putting their technology and hardware in the right place, experts say. But when the Aukus agreement was signed in 2021, all three countries had very different leaders - Joe Biden in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK and Scott Morrison in Australia. Today, when viewed through the increasingly isolationist lens Trump is using to examine his country's global ties, some argue the US has far less to gain from the pact. Under Secretary of Defence Policy Elbridge Colby, a previous critic of Aukus, will lead the White House review into the agreement, with a Pentagon official telling the BBC the process was to ensure it meets "common sense, America First criteria". Two of the criteria they cite are telling. One is a demand that allies "step up fully to do their part for collective defence". The other is a purported need to ensure that the US arms industry is adequately meeting the country's own needs first. The Trump administration has consistently expressed frustration at allies, including Australia, who they believe aren't pulling their weight with defence spending. They also say America is struggling to produce enough nuclear-powered submarines for its own forces. "Why are we giving away this crown jewel asset when we most need it?" Colby himself had said last year. The Australian government, however, is presenting a calm front. It's only natural for a new administration to reassess the decisions of its predecessor, officials say, noting that the new UK Labor government had a review of Aukus last year too. "I'm very confident this is going to happen," Defence Minister Richard Marles said of the pact, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). But there's little doubt the review would be causing some early jolts of panic in Canberra. "I think angst has been inseparable from Aukus since its beginning… The review itself is not alarming. It's just everything else," Euan Graham, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, tells the BBC. There is growing concern across Australia that America cannot be relied upon. "[President Donald Trump's] behaviour, over these first months of this term, I don't think should fill any observer with confidence about America's commitment to its allies," Mr Roggeveen says. "Trump has said, for instance, that Ukraine is mainly Europe's problem because they are separated by a big, beautiful ocean. Well of course, there's a big, beautiful ocean separating America from Asia too." Washington's decision to slap large tariffs on Australian goods earlier this year did not inspire confidence either, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying it was clearly "not the act of a friend". Albanese has stayed quiet on the Aukus review so far, likely holding his breath for a face-to-face meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week. This is a chat he's still desperately trying to get the US president to agree to. But several former prime ministers have rushed to give their two cents. Scott Morrison, the conservative leader who negotiated the Aukus pact in 2021, said the review should not be "over-interpreted" and scoffed at the suggestion another country could meet Australia's security needs. "The notion… is honestly delusional," he told ABC radio. Malcolm Turnbull, who was behind the French submarine contract that Morrison dramatically tore up in favour of Aukus, said Australia needs to "wake up", realise it's a "bad deal" which the US could renege on at any point, and make other plans before it is too late. Meanwhile, Paul Keating, a famously sharp-tongued advocate for closer ties with China, said this "might very well be the moment Washington saves Australia from itself". "Aukus will be shown for what it always has been: a deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused President Joe Biden." The whiff of US indecision over Aukus feeds into long-term criticism in some quarters that Australia is becoming too reliant on the country. Calling for Australia's own inquiry, the Greens, the country's third-largest political party, said: "We need an independent defence and foreign policy, that does not require us to bend our will and shovel wealth to an increasingly erratic and reckless Trump USA." There's every chance the US turns around in a few weeks and recommits to the pact. At the end of the day, Australia is buying up to five nuclear-powered submarines at a huge expense, helping keep Americans employed. And the US has plenty of time - just under a decade - to sort out their supply issues and provide them. "[The US] also benefit from the wider aspects of Aukus - all three parties get to lift their boat jointly by having a more interoperable defence technology and ecosystem," Mr Graham adds. Even so, the anxiety the review has injected into the relationship is going to be hard to erase completely – and has only inflamed disagreements over Aukus in Australia. But there's also a possibility Trump does want to rewrite the deal. "I can easily see a future in which we don't get the Virginia class boats," Mr Roggeveen says, referring to the interim submarines. That would potentially leave Australia with its increasingly outdated fleet for another two decades, vulnerable while the new models are being designed and built. What happens in the event the US does leave the Aukus alliance completely? At this juncture, few are sounding that alarm. The broad view is that, for the US, countering China and keeping the Pacific in their sphere of influence is still crucial. Mr Roggeveen, though, says that when it comes to potential conflict in the Pacific, the US hasn't been putting their money where its mouth is for years. "China's been engaged in the biggest build-up of military power of any country since the end of the Cold War and the United States' position in Asia basically hasn't changed," he says. If the US leaves, Aukus could very well become an awkward Auk – but could the UK realistically offer enough for Australia to sustain the agreement? And if the whole thing falls apart and Australia is left without submarines, who else could it turn to? France feels like an unlikely saviour, given the previous row there, but Australia does have options, Mr Roggeveen says: "This wouldn't be the end of the world for Australian defence." Australia is "geographically blessed", he says, and with "a reasonable defence budget and a good strategy" could sufficiently deter China, even without submarines. "There's this phrase you hear occasionally, that the danger is on our doorstep. Well, it's a big doorstep if that is true… Beijing is closer to Berlin than it is to Sydney." "There is this mental block in Australia and also this emotional block - a fear of abandonment, this idea that we can't defend ourselves alone. But we absolutely can if we have to." What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, the UK and US? Submarine deal sends powerful message to China The laidback Australian city key to countering China Donald Trump is looming over Australia's election
